Hacker News Reader

Comment by alphonsegaston | Hacker News Reader

This is an absurd false equivalency. The NSA isn't tracking down drivers, this is local law enforcement. They could be investigating a crime related to an Uber driver, but not specifically about the legality of the service.

What if you were just robbed or assaulted by a driver and Uber sends fake data about nearby cars when a cop is trying to use the app to track them down?

View on HN

>What if you were just robbed or assaulted by a driver and Uber sends fake data about nearby cars when a cop is trying to use the app to track them down?

Then I'd say "wow, why is this cop using an inaccurate and highly-likely-to-be-thrown-out-in-court method when the LEA has a stingray that allows them to track the driver directly and accurately?"

>this is local law enforcement

Yes, the poor, good, moral, ethical local law enforcement with their cheap and useless cellphone MiTM.

https://www.aclu.org/map/stingray-tracking-devices-whos-got-...

Yeah, every cop investigating every crime is on shaky ground and up to no good because they have Stingrays. That's quite the logical Deus Ex Machina.

The point being made is that a cop is not ever going to need to use Uber, that they shouldn't use Uber, and that (if for some reason they get all the way to court having used Uber as the basis for their evidence) they should have known that they shouldn't use Uber. Further, if they did need Uber, it would be by way of tracking the app's use from the suspect's phone directly.

Enough with the derailment tactics already, this doesn't make for a civil discussion. Bringing in new arguments like referring to stingrays (as itf they were owned or used universally) is BS and just a way to avoid responding to the legitimate question that was presented by the gp.

Any place using such a novel technique as tracking someone on Uber is almost universally likely to have access to a stingray. A stingray is arguably a more accurate and legally enforceable device.

And to add (edit): It's not a derailment, it's the logical conclusion that any area that has enough economic activity to be target by Uber definitely has enough resources to supply LEA with a stingray.

So your argument is that the police should be using the evil tools they already (supposedly) have?

Way to paint with a broad brush. It's not legal in many jurisdictions.

Also Stingrays are passive not active devices - if the theoretical Uber driver is out of range, it won't see the Stingray as a tower.

> What if you were just robbed or assaulted by a driver and Uber sends fake data about nearby cars when a cop is trying to use the app to track them down?

You can't use the app to track anyone down. Driver reviews of passengers and passenger reviews of drivers are annoynomous for this reason. If a cop is trying to track an uber driver they would be much better off getting the license plate from the passenger and running that through their system. Trying to randomly hail rides through the app in hopes that the abusive driver would happens to respond sounds like a waste of time when there are better alternatives.

Yeah, but you could also use it to see where cars are in the area and track them down from there? Except if you're a cop they flagged and they send you bullshit noise on purpose. I guess that's fine, right?

Yes, it is fine. Uber is a private company and its data is private. It's an interesting thought experiment but I just can't get behind the idea that a private company has a moral or ethical responsibility to ensure that data they're providing to the public via their own app doesn't mislead law enforcement. If there was a court order for the data and it was inaccurate or false that's one thing but this is completely different.

> They could be investigating a crime related to an Uber driver

In fact, that's what they were investigating. Violating any law is a crime.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com